Author
Topic: 70D and Dxomark.... (Read 93349 times)

The problem is when people equate better sensor performance on certain metrics to better overall camera performance across the board. But honestly, when I read posts by Mikael/ankorwatt, Aglet, et al., it comes across that they believe that sensor DR is the only aspect of camera performance that matters, and that the same it true for everyone who picks up a camera.

Actually, it is the other way around. You and a few other people are trying to change the topic every time DR is discussed. I still have to see somebody saying the Nikon cameras are better because of that. But when DR gets mentioned, within seconds, somebody feels the need to say that this is not the only aspect, etc., as if we are in kindergarten and do not know that.

This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.

no, but there were some CR2 reports that said Canon was leaning towards re-using the 70D sensor for the 7D2

THe 70D's sensor is ok. However, I think it should have been launched in the EOS-M, which would greatly benefit from the AF performance in Live View. I really, really hope that the 7D2 sensor is going to be better than the 70D's, otherwise it'll probably only be a 70D++ with better weathersealing, more AF points and better FPS.

no, but there were some CR2 reports that said Canon was leaning towards re-using the 70D sensor for the 7D2

THe 70D's sensor is ok. However, I think it should have been launched in the EOS-M, which would greatly benefit from the AF performance in Live View. I really, really hope that the 7D2 sensor is going to be better than the 70D's, otherwise it'll probably only be a 70D++ with better weathersealing, more AF points and better FPS.

It does seem ultra curious that they didn't use it for the M since my impression was that the M failed because people didn't like the AF on it. Maybe the processing power to handle the new AF was too much? (i don't know much about the internals of the M or what price goals they need to hit, still with sales apparently (I really haven't followed the market much just going by random hearsay) so tanked.... it seems odd)

Thank goodness they are very skilled photographers and know what they're doing because their cameras are not giving them the slightest advantage vs. Canon. Canon "banding getting worse" ... what banding? Canon "falling behind in color sensitivity"? ... I wish Nikon color were as good.

You seriously did notice the banding got worse going for 1Ds3 to 5D2? Or 40D to 50D? And then better again from 5D2 to 6D (although maybe still a trace behind the old 1Ds3)?

You actually think that many Nikons have not had a lot less banding than stuff like 50D,5D2,5D3,1D4,etc.?

Maybe you don't ever shoot to where it matters, but that is something else.

You wish Nikon color sensitivity were as good? It's better.As for what color is better overall, not just talking color sensitivity, that is a very complex topic with no easy answers. Overall it seems Nikon has filters that allow for more accurate color overall on average although Canon make make certain skin types easier to pull off nicely. It's a very twisted subejct and it varies model to model and in many cases there is probably no universal answer comparing any given body to any given other it might depend upon the very exactingly specific question you ask. But in terms of color sensitivity and metamerism overall on average Nikon has often been a full stop ahead recently.

1Ds3 to 5D2 -- that's going from the a top of the line model to a model costing half as much. You're really stretching here.

40D to 50D -- that was 2008; we are now two models post 50D. You're really stretching to prove this alleged decline.

5D2 to 6D -- the 6D is significantly better in image quality. There is no banding, let alone "worse" banding. I used two 5D2's for a total of nearly 400K exposures. No banding problem. I must be shooting "where it never matters", or perhaps I don't massively underexpose.

I didn't say Nikon has less banding. I said banding is not an issue with current Canon models. And there you go again with the 50D.

As for Nikon color being "better" ... I've seen too many examples to the contrary.

Case in point - this is how Aglet evaluates a new camera: 'pictures' with the lens cap on. He'll then boost the black images 4-5 stops, and tell us all how crappy the 'pictures' are, and how Canon still hasn't made their sensors cameras any better.

Yawn.

And I suppose when you carry out bio research that instead of doing the simplest, most repeatable test (for which you have a good sense how the results would correspond in other scenarios of interest as well) you instead do very time consuming tests that are not easily repeatable to start?

I like simple, repeatable tests. But I also understand they're designed to test only one aspect, often one of a multitude of aspects, of system performance.

The problem is when people equate better sensor performance on certain metrics to better overall camera performance across the board. But honestly, when I read posts by Mikael/ankorwatt, Aglet, et al., it comes across that they believe that sensor DR is the only aspect of camera performance that matters, and that the same it true for everyone who picks up a camera.

Actually, it is the other way around. You and a few other people are trying to change the topic every time DR is discussed.

It's about putting it in context. You seem to grasp that DR is merely one aspect of camera performance, not all DRones are so perceptive.

This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.

Fine. How do you explain the dozens of other threads that aren't about sensor performance, or where Sony/Nikon sensors aren't even mentioned, until the DRones bring their DRivel? Threads about lenses, threads about autofocus, threads about dead pixels, I've seen all DRagged down into the dolDRums by the you-know-whos.

Case in point - this is how Aglet evaluates a new camera: 'pictures' with the lens cap on. He'll then boost the black images 4-5 stops, and tell us all how crappy the 'pictures' are, and how Canon still hasn't made their sensors cameras any better.

Yawn.

And I suppose when you carry out bio research that instead of doing the simplest, most repeatable test (for which you have a good sense how the results would correspond in other scenarios of interest as well) you instead do very time consuming tests that are not easily repeatable to start?

Why should do some test that will take him two hours and that would be hard to match up with other tests when he could do a lens cap test in like literally 60 seconds and get something easily and repeatably comparably to other tests he has done at different times or to tests carried out by others. While doing that test also takes just about 15 seconds extra to also examine banding performance. If you already have a good sense how those relate to the real world why would you not start there? Maybe you like to waste hours of your time only vaguely accurately measuring DR for hours, but maybe he doesn't.

I don't think neuro is knocking his performing the test or even his testing methods per se, but rather the prospective conclusion he and many others will deduce from it: that the camera is trash simply because there isn't a significant difference in high ISO or DR performance from its predecessor and/or competition.

Here are the facts:

Yes, modern Nikons have better sensors.Sony makes these sensors.Yet, Canon still outsells Nikon and Sony in the DSLR market.

While it's true that DR is important, it seems to not be as crucial as say ergonomics or functionality, hence why the majority chooses Canon. Well, that and for the lenses!

This thread is about sensor performance, and has been since the beginning.

Curious that you say that, Pi. Your tone seemed to make the conclusion that based on sensor performance (specifically DR), you would recommend anything but Canon, joining in with other posts saying that Canon "sucks". People "feel the need" to respond to the (in my opinion) useless conclusion that Canon cameras are inferior based on the sensor charts originally meant as the topic of this thread.

There have been a few posts where the so-called "Canon Fanboys" openly acknowledge that the Sony sensors are superior in dynamic range at certain ISO levels. Why is that not enough? Because they don't buy the garbage that, based on that dynamic range, only a fool would choose Canon over Nikon (Sony)?

(Incidentally, I happen to really enjoy some of the breathtaking images "fools" like Andy Rouse are producing with their "inferior" Canon gear.) Not a single image of his have I thought to myself, "Dang -- that would be a great image if it just had another two stops of dynamic range. What a pity. I would have liked it..." And that applies to before and after his switch to Canon.

Of course, this takes me back to the point I tried to make earlier that noteworthy photographers are too busy producing fantastic photographs to complain about dynamic range getting in the way...especially when the dynamic range capability in question is for a mid-level crop sensor camera.

So:

Sony sensors are superior in dynamic range and noise at certain ISOs.

Canon gear isn't stopping some of the best photographers in the world from being some of the best photographers in the world.

There are enough people in the world that choose Canon despite #1 above, as demonstrated by those evil sales volume figures and the continuation of this seemingly endless thread, to show that dynamic range isn't everything.

Yes, modern Nikons have better sensors.Sony makes these sensors.Yet, Canon still outsells Nikon and Sony in the DSLR market.

Of those three, I care only about #1. I have some limited interest in #3, since I do not want either company to go the Kodak way.

BTW, oil stains are not signs of IQ, so I would stick to "better DR and slightly better high ISO performance".

Anyone who thinks oil stains are a sign of IQ are ignorant, but you have to admit that it's definitely not reassuring!

The point is, having slightly lesser DR or high ISO performance does not make a camera as a whole inferior. Rather, its priorities are simply shifted elsewhere and it may have an advantage that the other camera lacks: in this case, video. Does this make the supposedly "inferior" camera any less capable in the stills department? No. It can still perform the same tasks, just with slightly more grain or less highlight/shadow resolution. It's all about priorities and compromises.